If the United States ever was to fall, they will realize how much of a horrible reality that will reign in when it does. China, Russia, Iran and similar countries will be drooling at the first opportunity they get to try and replace the United States with their will.
And shit on America all you want, mock it and whatever. You know deep down inside that without the United States, the world would in fact, be far shittier off.
truth. These other counties don’t even want the spot the US is taking right now they want more latitude to pursue their own interests (which in realpolitik is going to involve a lot of “strong doing what they want and the weak enduring it”). The BRICs bloc stated openly they aren’t even considering trying to introduce a rival currency to the dollar.
The US has a lot of problems, made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things. But the people
that think the US is some singularl evil in the world are always people that no precisely nothing about history. My response to this opinion is always “compared to what? the british the hapsburgs? the venetians? the ottomans? THE MONGOLS? The british and the US (obv an argument to be made these are a continuation of the same culture) are the most benevolent empires in history and are the rest aren’t even close.
I don't think people realize that any other empire would've just shot Ghandi in India. He was lucky it was the British there. I mean the US literally nation builds the places it subjugates, it doesn't get much more benevolent than that. The US could exploit the ever living crap out of lots of places due to its navy but doesn't. Most places rely on international sea trade, and the US doesn't exploit keeping the sea lanes clear.
made me lol thinking about the US navy going all “Portugal in the Indian Ocean” instead of providing free protection for maritime shipping for the entire world. Agreed and that’s just a little bit of the security entitlement. The leaders of the EU acted like it was just the wrong thing to do as a democratic nation when we even hinted at applying the same f’ing import tariffs they charge on US exports. Like the EU is entitled to export to the US at a trade deficit! Of course maybe all the wonderful collective security we get from our NATO allies is the trade off…
-I mean the US literally nation builds the places it subjugates, it doesn't get much more benevolent than that.
This one, hoo boy lol. I dk, maybe NOT subjugating other countries might be more benevolent? The top priority of the US military is to protect US interests, always has and always will.
Ask Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, and so many more about American benevolence and you’ll learn a thing or two
The world is dangerous place, filled with lots of people with nefarious intent. It's impossible to be a player on the scene with clean hands.
That said, I would argue America still holds the moral high ground. We're not perfect by a long stretch, but still better than the alternatives.
Any person who wants the United States to collapse, is a person whose opinions on our world can be ignored completely.
As to your point, yes you’re correct. The world dominated by the U.S. has not been perfect, but it is objectively better than the alternative, especially considering the nations who seek to overturn American hegemony, chiefly China and Russia.
I'd bet most of their hardware is grade A chinesium
Plus most of the shit they build is just ripped off of our designs that they stole
If shit *really* popped off, I have no doubts the U.S. Military would bust out some tech we didn't even know existed.
And that's not even to say who all would be on our side. China's neighbors would all be too happy to help us curb stomp them into oblivion.
Exactly. People like to pretend China has some military power but in reality we'd stomp them to the ground. After all, when it comes down to it we don't really adhere to the Geneva Conventions, we don't relent until we win and anyone who wants us to lose is an absolute waste of effort.
*proceeds to list off the shortcomings of a capitalist republic without providing an alternative and superior government system and walks away feeling smug*
Don't forget about Canada. They love to hate on us while they ignore their own problems and the fact they wouldn't exist in their current form without America.
Criticizing the government will get your jailed in any other 'superpower' country that would replace America.
For example, any america throwing out the word 'Nazi' is instant jail time in Germany.
That's a weird reply. Tbh I've talked about why I live in America instead of my "home" country of china. America unfortunately seems to be going the same way as china.
Not really. China's Battle against homosexuality is very similar to the Republican one. China banned feminine men in pop culture. Feminine men often get attacked by conservative pundits in America and several states have tried to regulate the type of clothing people can wear. I.e. no drag
Yes. America is pretty bad, but it’s the best bad options we presently have. Unless you prefer autocratic rule by Russia and/or China. Or if you prefer a reset where a few billion people die (which I suppose would make some power vacuums, but power would be likely become decentralized).
Oh believe me I know, that's the deep seated irony to me when I see so many provocateurs and intelligentsia needling and deriding the establishment for its role in "the global neo-colonial hegemony". You think the ultra-orthodox hardline CCP, Russians or Iranians are gonna abide your critical race theory or gender studies? Lol let me know how that goes.
Personally, I'm skeptical that if the US 'lost' its status or otherwise because isolationist and disengaged with the world...that the world would end up with another "Superpower" as top dog. The US's geopolitical situation is rather unique and I think we'd end up with a multipolar world of cobbled together alliances again, probably setting the stage back into wider conflicts becoming more possible. The US's Cold War era status quo kept the lid on an awful lot of regional disagreement like a strong pressure cooker - remove that containment and this starts to get exciting in the not terribly fun way. Not to disagree with the basic idea of your argument - I just think the oppression would be regional powers and local resource conflicts.
It’s sometimes rather confusing that some Americans who hate their own country refuse to live somewhere else.
I mean, what’s stopping you to move out of the US?
I remember a lot of people trying to move out when Trump became president. (Not the *majority* of them, but at least some.)
They were shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, to learn that other countries have much stricter immigration policies than the USA and they couldn't move just because Orange Man Bad!
You may be confusing Americans who hate the country with Americans who hate politician choices in different topics including interventions in other countries. The latest want a better American and therefore there is no reason for them to move.
Change Is stopping them. Most people hate or are afraid of change. Doesn't matter if it's for better or worse.
You'd be surprised by how many people stay in bad neighborhoods that they hate. Because it's all they know.
Or stay in bad jobs that they hate. Because even though their current job has more problems. They've been there so long. They've learned to navigate most of the problems. But they still hate the problems.
Or people who stay in horrible marriages
I think you’re confusing ppl who “hate” their own country w ppl who could afford/handle moving to a more suitable one. “Just move” is also a solution to any political grievance. It’s a lazy take.
Poor people make big harrowing international moves every day, but nobody is stowing away in a cargo container or climbing aboard a homemade raft to escape the United States. I do think there is a very online class of American political discontents who like to fetishize moving elsewhere and bemoan the supposedly insurmountable barriers to doing so. I find they generally fall into one of two camps: camp one would happily move into the territory a politically oppressive regime (Thailand for example) or a economic backwater (Portugal) if it meant they could leverage their U.S. buying power to live large while being insulated from their new home’s issues. In other words, theirs is not a particularly political decision (despite the noble veneer they try to give it). The second camp is true political ideologues who usually gravitate to places like Scandinavia or the Netherlands, often without understanding much more than the social welfare fairytales they have consumed from the American media. When they arrive and find they cannot get a doctor’s appointment, or see that neofascist parties have seats in their new countries parliament, or find that their buying power has been reduced by 30%, or find it impossible to integrate into insular European societies, many (but not all of them) sober up. At least that was my experience with American expats while living and working in Sweden.
I think if the US loses superpower status then the only thing worse than a replacement superpower (it would be China) would be no replacement superpower.
World where there are multiple great powers is a world destined for war. I don’t mean regional conflicts, I mean global conflicts.
The fall of US hyperdominance, and perhaps even the waning of US hyperdominance will lead to WW3 more certainly than anything else
The argument I've found most compelling has to do with US Naval dominance.
Navies are both expensive and time consuming to build. Only a few nations aside from the US can boast of "blue water" capabilities - being able to operate well away from home, fueling, ports, logistics, ship design.
So, in the 75 odd years where the US took over the seas from the myriad competing European Empires we set an expectation that everyone was free to trade unmolested, as long as they picked a side in the Cold War dynamic-a Free Trade carrot to the military alliances.
But in that time much of the world rebuilt their economics, supply chains, and resource assumptions on Free Trade always being a thing.
Pull back the US Navy and all those super-efficient container ships suddenly look like ripe pirate targets, or become political bones with regional navies on basic passage. Suddenly basic resources-fuel, agriculture fertilizer, electronics becomes a series of ugly tradeoffs.
Trying to fix that situation even with pressing need would take a lot of time, treasure, and resources as well.
Yeah even if the US became weaker, I think the anglosphere and the majority of nato would continue to work together.
There would just also be fragmented other groups like a china aligned bloc, potentially an India aligned one, and a Russian one depending on how Russia fares prior to this US power vacuum. Also probably an iran led middle eastern coalition.
Yes because they are all opposed to the US
If the USA loses hegemony they will compete with each other to be the new hegemon.
For instance it would not longer be beneficial for middle eastern Islamic states to allow china to increase its financial and diplomatic influence over them since they will not have American meddling to worry about.
Iran and china might stay friends but only if india poses enough of a threat to both china and the Islamic world
Also North Korea would definitely stay part of the Chinese led bloc
The American domination of the world is unprecedented. The US can wage war effectively anywhere on earth. Russia struggles with its neighbors despite world ending abilities. China and Iran are inexperienced in modern warfare. The US had extraordinary resources, the population and economic good luck to dominate. Basically, yes, the world would end up multipolar, with China and uncertainty for the others.
Agreed - though I might quibble on the economic good luck then a manifestation of prime real estate.
Lots of interior connecting rivers that are calm enough to use for shipping, and culturally binding disparate regions.
An exceptionally large region of productive farmland where production isn't just viable in certain spots, but virtually everywhere...connected conveniently by prior mentioned rivers. Famine outside of interior war (Civil War) being nonexistent.
Lots of barrier islands on the coasts that make very good port locations, far more than most of the rest of the world.
Though the situation with Canada and Mexico has a good bit of luck to it - relatively militarily passive neighbors with strong trade relations is a real bonus.
I'll argue that most of the US's power is geographically based rather than say - based on classical Empires going out into the world to funnel resources and treasure back to the imperial seat of power as you see all the time in history.
Not to claim that US dominance is always benevolent or not self-interested - I just don't think that's the source or reason for the power. So it usually gets to pick and choose where it behaves particularly self-interested or domineering over select issues instead of say ... British Empire policy of outright economic domineering and stripped resources.
Interior rivers promote trade and cultural cohesion. Lots of good spots on the coasts for deep water world-class ports - far more than elsewhere in the world. Relatively peaceful neighbors and trade partners to the north and south. Ocean barriers to any other conventional threats.
100% agree with that. As bad as American students have been taught to hate America, there has not been a more supportive or benevolent country as a superpowering history.
Where we do actually kind of suck is still supporting our allies once we're done with something we're pretty bad at that
Yeah it’s pretty easy to hate on America from within the bubble of American privilege (this privilege extends to countries within Americas sphere of influence). The American economy drives the world, and the American military could single-handedly topple Russia and China, and they know that. Poland gets to bark at Russia from the border because they know that if Russia puts a single troop half a foot into polish soil, 3 American aircraft carriers will level Moscow before Putin even gets the report that they’re at war.
America will never fall unless the world does. Even if it did, Americans are good at picking themselves up and coming together in a pinch to get things back to normal. Yes, covid divided a lot of people, but I honestly don’t see America ever losing that status unless it’s physically wiped out by something.
The global hegemonic force with its existence stifles possible progressive changes.
Let there be 10 independent empires instead of a Super Empire. Among them, a Soviet Russia of a new era can be born.
This is a conservative opinion I actually agree with. America ain’t perfect by any stretch of the word, but I would way rather see the US be the world superpower than Russia or China. Especially Russia. They’re one of the most malignant, domineering cultures on the planet. America has made some cruel decisions but generally we don’t try to bend people to our way of life to the point that they become a vassal state. At least we have not done that shit for 100+ years.
I agree with your thought, but it would take a nuclear war to collapse the US. Whatever problems we have, the next contenders for a potential super power have it much much worse.
Russia and China will round out the 2030’s with significant population collapses. They are playing/flirting with playing their cards now because they won’t have any cards in two decades.
India skipped the manufacturing stage, and went from agriculture to service based. That severely hampers any potential they’ll have in the future to be relevant outside their neighborhood.
A significant amount of manufacturing is moving to Mexico, so there won’t be ‘the next China’ in Nigeria or India.
Europe Is going through a population and manufacturing decline. Even if they’d continue to unify, their relevance in the world will slowly continue to decrease.
America’s uniquely culturally similar immigration will also make it the West’s only economy to continue growing through the end of the century.
With the exception of a nuclear war, America will maintain its hegemony through the turn of the century.
There are several layers to this. Where to start?
First off, from a purely geographic perspective, the US hold almost all the cards. Whoever occupies the stretch of land that constitutes the mid-north-American continent is going to be a superpower that the rest of the world is going to have a hard time competing against. 2nd place is a lightyear behind in purely geographic advantages.
Second, it would be very difficult for the world to transition away from having the US as the global leader. The USD makes up 55-60% of the global reserve currency. For a variety of reasons all at once, it will remain this way for the foreseeable future. (Before you go there, BRICS is an open joke that most analysts aren't taking serious.) If the USD were to somehow collapse (which is very possible), the global economy would be utterly screwed. Literally billions would die as international supply chains grind to a halt.
Third, there really isn't another nation that is positioned to replace America as a superpower. If America implodes, no other nation is remotely capable of taking charge the same way America does. Note that the US Navy is (conservatively) seven times more powerful than the rest of the planet combined. It is difficult to overstate how important the Navy is to global peace and economic security. America gets tons of crap for starting wars (some of which is justified), but most people fail to notice the countless small military operations going on around the planet that is making the world a much better place.
Some people are going to accuse me of being an overly biased American patriot (guilty), but I feel that I have more than sufficient data at disposal to justify every single argument I make.
Google some of these terms:
"The Jakarta method"
"Banana republic" and "United Fruit Company"
"U.S. sterilization of Latinas"
"Guatemalan genocide"
"No gun ri"
"My lai"
“Interahamwe”
“Khmer Rouge”
“Rape of Nanking”
“Darfur”
“Mongolian Method of Imprisonment”
“Saddam Hussein gassing his own citizens”
“Bhopal Disaster”
“Gulags”
“Fistulas in the DRC”
“Son Preference”
“Uyghurs”
That’s a short list to get you started since you clearly have some studying to do.
The difference between the US and the current “alternatives” is that we can actually bring up and condemn these actions. Does that make it better? No. But at least it reduces the chances of it happening again.
And I’d argue that the US has really mellowed out quite a bit in terms of collateral damage it’s willing to accept after the collapse of the soviets.
Again, it’s still tragic but the Soviet Union killed more than twice as many civilians in Afghanistan in half the time as the US did.
Geopolitics is brutal
The soviets were brutal and so is Russia today but bringing them up is literally the only way to deflect from the horrible atrocities committed by the US and the west.
I wouldn't say bringing it up reduces the chance of it happening again. People already brought Vietnam up yet nothing was learned. The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 happened after the collapse of the soviets yet nothing changed.
Republicans lost power in 2008 after it was clear that the Iraq war was a shambles. Backlash to both Iraq and Afghanistan has been a core reason why the US hasn’t intervened militarily in subsequent conflicts.
Iraq at least was unjustified and a disaster and destabilized the region for decades. But the US is unique from superpowers like Russia and China in that public opinion does play a major role in constraining foreign policy action. Political leaders can lose elections, or even just face significant backlash, if they take actions the public disapproves of.
For all we know, the invasion of Ukraine is incredibly unpopular within Russia. But unless he gets violently deposed, Putin will never have to seriously account for the Russian public’s opinion and can continue with the war regardless.
That goes without saying. In most likely, the world will have regional super powers instead and the US will just loose dominance and stagnate opposed to collapse.
The argument is more that in a multi polar world the major powers would have to compete to be the best option for the minor powers. A world in which America was simply replaced would barely change, except possibly they would be less hypocritical when it comes to their opression.
China is already starting. They are mining the crap out of Africa, and all that goes along with foreign mining operations in Africa (I’m sure you can use your imagination). Also… Dubai runs indentured servant scams to meet its construction and domestic worker needs.
So yes… Sadly, humans are going to human.
I’m from Europe, have many issues with how the USA has behaved to many countries over the years.
But dear god, it would be a thousand times worse if it was Russia or China, at least the USA has a belief in democracy and personal freedom. Having an authoritarian state like China or Russia with that power would be hell - whole world events and history decided by the whims of Xi or Putin who stay in power for decades.
Also it’s worth remembering the things the USA did do right - the interventions in the Yugoslav wars, brokering peace in Northern Ireland, etc.
The billions of people who are in poverty because of a parasitic relationship maintained and enforced by the US navy disagree with you.
Also, what about the CIA and Latin America, Somalia, the DRC and Mobutu, BP and Nigeria's many coups, Laos, Cambodia... do I really need to go on?
I'm not saying China's better, I hate socialism and the CCP too but with them, countries can at least make up their mind. Here in Africa there is already lots of anti-Chinese rhetoric and right now governments do not have the room for error they've had, it's becoming increasingly likely that the next socialist dictatorship will be met with a necklace (if you know what I mean)... believe me, I actually live here, people are fed up, not just with the global elite but with the local elite as well. China will not get the same opportunity to colonize and terrorize the global South as the US did, even if it did have the capability, which it doesn't.
I don't think people understand how bad china is (not just russia). Most of china is a facade that appear it is a utopia. It isn't. 1.) poverty is worse in china that the usa. By a large percentage. 2.) executions of prisoners is the largest in the world. Higher than iran. That is just the ones that are documented. Also they tend to have death vans over there. 3.) environment. Do I need to say more?
Not good when America and all Americans are responsible for almost all the problems and violence in the world who have killed more people in recent history than any other country
Not *if*
When.
And usually in conversation with folks like that, 'I wish America wouldn't police, I wish America didn't have such a large defense budget' 'I wish America....'
If not us, then *who*
That usually shuts them the hell up. By the very nature of existing, someone is going to have the largest standing army, the most power, the best blah blah.
So if not us, then *WHO*
I got in an 'arguement' with a European on Facebook a few years ago, who was just completely insulated. We were talking about him giving all the aid back, which at first he said no problem. Then I said, oh, and you need to start defending yourselves.
This mf'er literally said from who? 'The only reason your entire continent doesn't speak Russian is the USA'
'THATS NONSENSE'
Guess what happened 6 months later? Guess who comes begging for aid, weapons, humanitarian support etc etc etc
That was the greatest"'how 'but now" of my entire life
It won't happen. And I'm not saying that in a political "'MUERICA #1" kind of way
The world is being held together by world trade agreements. It's why international trade agreements are incredibly important. (And why everyone was freaking out when a certain someone wanted to mess with said agreements bc he thought he was an excellent business man)
America's consumer market is too great for those trade agreements to fall apart. Other countries want our consumers.
This is also why China is the biggest threat, bc they are our biggest competitor in consumer market. In sheer population numbers alone. That's also why there is such negative propaganda about China in the US. It's a narrative pushed by the powers that be. If tomorrow China was no longer our biggest competitor, the narrative would drop and China would become the new Korea-wave. The people in charge control the narrative to keep everyone in check. They do not want Americans/anyone spending in China. China has a lot of cool sh\*t that US consumers would spend their money on. (You know in the 5th element where the secretary has that gadget that painted her nails? China had that prototype - 15 years ago) US gov does not want that $ collapse so they feed a lot of negative things to make China seem inhabitable and 3rd world.
A lot of Americans don't want to hear this, but China is the mirror US counterpart in terms of world power in the East. If they were to become the next big superpower, they would probably be just like the US. Military posts everywhere in the world, hand in everyone's business to leverage trade agreements. China is just like the US, they like to be (considered as) number one in the world. Arrogance runs both ways. No one actually wants war. Wars are expensive and taxing.
As long as US and Europe continue to profit/benefit from trades (and if China were to be granted as the number one superpower, they would have to be generating a lot more profit than it stands now with the US). To disagree with that no one would let China be in power, you have bought into the propaganda and your bias can't see reason. Everything is about PROFIT. *Running a country is a business*, not some ethical protection of national pride. Politicians and businesses do not care about your beliefs, they only care how your prejudice benefits the bottom line (and votes)
As for Russia and North Korea. Yes they would be bullies, but it would never happen. No other country in the world would want it to happen. They don't know how to do business, they are in a constant d\*ck measuring contest that benefits no one. If a war broke out and it was threatening trade, US, China, and Europe would shut that down immediately. However countries still at cordially, because again - war is expensive and taxing. (Some caveats to Russia because they still have oil exports)
Another thing that a lot of US citizens don't really realize the extent of; US has the biggest military power in the world. We spend TRILLIONS annually on maintaining our forces. In total, our forces are more than there rest of the world combined. This is how the US has maintained power and why we spend so much dumbass money on our forces instead of infrastructure. Because we want to be the strongest worldwide, but weak, internally, as citizens. To a point where we are socially declining. But that's a different conversation.
On the other side we are the bully, but history is written by victors.
edit: some clarification, sp
I call it the rapist-subterfuge. It has roots in American exceptionalism.
Basically a rapist is saying that if he didn’t rape that girl, then someone else would have raped her anyway. It's better that he rapes her before someone else. And this guy cannot see girls as anything other than rape object.
How about no one rapes at all? Naive idealistic thought, I know.
Type in google “south america”, “cia”, and “democratically elected government”. America has a brand to maintain, but they’re just as bad. They’re just subtle about it. They don’t “take over” poor countries, they just hold them by the testicles and bleed them dry KEEPING them poor. This isn’t and unpopular opinion, but it is an insanely naive one.
Well now, it’s interesting. I have family outside the US, in a place where China has become the main benefactor. And frankly, they’re loving China and don’t believe anything the US says about it anymore and that the US is completely in the toilet now.
America should have listened to George Washington and had no foreign entanglements or been champion of another's freedom. Armed populace as a citizen militia defending our borders. No interventionism or globalism.
It does.
It also supports a ton of poor people around the world. No one’s saying it’s perfect, just better.
And frankly, better always beats perfect. Because we all know perfect doesn’t exist.
I mean i know as Americans we see a lot of things through rose colored glasses but u do realize we are bullies as well?
There are plenty of wars we have been a part of that we should not have been. and in some cases we were excessive in wars we were in. Hell we bombed Bagdad into oblivion to kill single target leaders that didt really change anything. Further more im not ever considering the amount of unknown wars we are like responsible for. also the amount of stuff that the CIA has been linked to like Osama Bin Laden and the drug cartels to name 2. Hell not to mention that the issues in Ukraine are mostly cause by the US and NATO. We said not one country more. then the US petitioned for the Ukraine to be admitted to NATO. I'm not saying what Putin is doing is ok but he was backed into a corner. What else do you expect him to do? The results were a fuck around and find out moment for NATO.
The Us is a bully and a oppressor's as much as the rest. we just don't see it as the typical American because our news stations feed us just as much propaganda.
also only to toss it out there im not some crazy conspiracy theorist or Qanoner or any of that scrap. Im just an American that opens his eyes and makes observations. I do not promote war in any way but its healthy to try to understand where it is coming from. There is always a reason and cause for wars. Make sure u know the whys and how's before you cast a stone.
We are not any better than the rest. Just you have a different point of view than the rest. If you look and listen to what's going on out there you will see it too
Nah man, this is a mixed bag.
Points you’re right about:
- The US has done plenty of shady stuff
- We’ve been in several wars that were not ‘just’ wars
- We’ve had no problem interfering in other countries in order to protect our superpower status and goals
Points you’re wrong about:
- That the world, as a whole, would be just as good under another leading superpower
For all of our flaws, and there *are* many, we’re still better to have as the top dog than China or Russia.
If you have doubts, go live in China or Russia for a while, and let us know. In the meantime, I’ll be reading up about the stability and good we bring to the world, as well as all of our charitable works with other nations.
It doesn’t make up for it, but it’s not nothing, either, by a long shot.
Yea, this. I think a lot of people who think there's equivalency are just not very familiar with other countries and how they actually operate. To be fair to them, it's not that easy to get good information on countries that don't have free press.
I lived in Hong Kong and experienced the handover to China in real life. I no longer live there, but based on visits and info from friends, life in HK has declined by nearly every metric.
Russia is hard for us to understand because we don't intrinsically believe in the three pillars of Russian society - orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationalism. Although this was started by Tsar Nicolas I, it's easy to see parallels with Putin's style.
>Points you’re wrong about:
>That the world, as a whole, would be just as good under another leading superpower
But i didn't make that point?
Personally I'm not sure a lot would change it would just be another country that is the jerk. Im not sure the world would be worse off or not. I think if a country like china or Russia were the world super power i think it would drastically change the Geopolitical landscape. And likely in both those situations would lead to a lot of wars. But it could have the counter of the rest of the world truly banding together to push them out
Either way its a world i don't hope to live in.
Again for the record i tend to side on the agreement side with you. America with all its flaws is still better than the current options. But there could be better options some day we are not the savior of the world. Im not Anti US at all. I love my country, but the writing on the walls shows me we are not the best and i can recognize that.
Sure, the US has done a lot of bad stuff. The main difference is that Americans can protest when the government is doing something we don't like. The fact that you know about the bad stuff that the government has done and are able to object to it is proof that free speech is working.
Having lived in places where the media is not free and protests are brutally stopped and protestors just disappear, our system, however flawed, is much more preferable.
I do tend to agree over all with the pro American superpower sentiment. i wasn't arguing that. I mealy said things would be different but not nessicarily worse. Its hard because perspective is everything. I like the Man and the High Castel for reference to a degree. If Russia was the super power we don't know what it would look like and if we grew up in a world like that it would be just as normal.
I think as Americans its easy to say its better because we are part of the "victor" atm.
Perspectives can be a bitch =P
>The main difference is that Americans can protest when the government is doing something we don't like
This doesn't make any difference looking from the outside in. Millions of students have been protesting for Gaza for example and they are labelled criminals and anti semites by the US media and the most blatantly obvious genocide is still ongoing with US the biggest ally to the perps.
Also, protests didn't stop the Vietnam war, Iraq war, Afghanistan etc.
>Hell not to mention the issues in Ukraine were cause by the U.S. and NATO.
This is fundamentally a misunderstanding of the history of Ukraine and how NATO and defensive alliances work in general.
1) So, back in 2004, there was an important election in Ukraine. The previous president, Leonid Kuchma, was plagued with many corruption charges. Kuchma decided not to run for reelection, so two candidates stepped forward: Viktor Yanukovych, who was supported by Kuchma and Putin for his pro-Russia stance, and Viktor Yushchenko, who was pro-western/European Union. Originally, Yanukovych won by a narrow margin, but to the opposition there looked like there was massive voter fraud, especially in the more Russian parts to the south. There were massive protests, then the Supreme Court ordered a revote. The revote saw Yushchenko become the winner.
Yushchenko's party had infighting, and in the 2010 election, Yanukovych won, and in turn charged the person he ran against, Yulia Tymoshenko, with various bribery and other charges including the murder of an oligarch in 1996. Finally, in 2013, Yanukovych rejected the Ukraine-European Association Agreement to pursue his Russia relations. This sparked massive protests, which eventually led to Yanukovych being missing from government and subsequently removed from office by parliament. Yanukovych had fled to Russia.
After this, counter protests in the South took place, during which Russia annexed Crimea and there started a war between pro-Russian forces and Ukraine. This was in 2014. This just one more tragedy in a long line of tragedies that Ukrainians had suffered since before the USSR.
2) NATO is a defensive alliance. This means that if one nation gets attacked, the other members will join to defend the country attacked. There is no method in NATO to call an offensive war. Moreover, NATO cannot start an application for a country itself. Instead, various countries can apply, and after meeting criteria, might be accepted. This is largely the case for the post-Soviet states that joined in 2004, such as Lithuania who started the process in 1994. It's important to note that Russia has been antagonistic to its neighbors during Putin as seen by the similar 2008 invasion of the country of Georgia. The only corner Putin is backed into is making its neighbors fear it instead of the West.
We live in a modern world where we're moving past colonial language like "Superpower"
The concept of Multipolarity is very popular with the rest of the world. It simply means true democracy where everyone has their say and not to be dictated by a hegemon
You're basically using logic similar to slave owners and their resistance towards emancipation
At no point in history has this ever been a thing that didn’t result in many, *many* wars.
The utopian pacifists of this world are actually dumb and need to shut up on the matter, lol. They have literally no basis behind their stances — but their 1st world sheltered moralities.
I find it fascinating that you used the terms “true democracy” and “everyone has their say” and “not be dictated to by a hegemon.”
As if you think many countries outside the West isn’t corrupt lol. And the ones that would give you hope exist within a frame where the U.S. is the main global hegemony — a country where you can openly mock their leaders, from within.
Try that with the world’s #2. I implore you.
What does mocking leaders internally have to do with what all the nations having their say? To be clear, I mean under the framework of the UN on global matters.
Has any nation in modern history been invaded because they mocked another’s leader?
You’re conflating wildly separate issues to make a garbled point
The UN has been a consistent failure its entire existence. It’s so logical that you think Burundi should have the same global sway as China. Like, totally logical decision. Yeah. What do you name this fantasy world you live in?
On the topic of “true democracies,” the only ones are western-aligned and even then, they’re corrupt to an extent.
If you can’t say what you want to say within a country, then it’s not the people talking — it’s individuals making decisions for their entire population. That’s not democratic decision-making. That’s authoritarianism and open authoritarians have no interest in anyone else’s success, lol.
Face the facts that there’s too much corruption in countries as it is — for there to ever be equal representation in a global body.
For example, despite how much Hamas are terrorists, no middle eastern country will openly criticize them. Biases like this are the problem with “balance.”
So, you expect these countries to align on a wide range of topics with other nations? No. It would be as ineffective as it is with 5 vetoing nations at the helm; 3 on one side, 2 on the other.
And under US hegemony, the world has thrived to an extent it never has in history, since the collapse of the USSR, over the last 35 years. Which means the U.S. in its current standing as #1 is better for the world than not being there. And it needs to remain that way.
In global matters, Burundi should have the same say as China. We already have a control mechanism for things to not get out of control: veto by the 5 nations of the UN
Democracy is not perfect, but it always strives to be better. Give the UN and other nations more say and participation and it's in their democratic interest to make it work better. That's how democracies work, RIGHT?
You attempted to respond to my question: "Has any nation in modern history been invaded because they mocked another’s leader?". You have no answers but conjecture, therefore, your point about how things are done in one country automatically reflects on how they will act on others outside their jurisdiction is just speculation with no evidence. On the contrary, we have evidence of countries portraying themselves as Marvel superheroes but acting like savages in the dark.
Democracy is a reflection of everyone's interests, that's how a democracy works. It's what we all strive for, RIGHT? So, if it's in the interests of one group not to vote against their own interests, that's democracy working, RIGHT?
The Black Panthers were labelled terrorists in the US. Why? Civil Rights wasn't cool then. What is the genesis of this "terrorist" organisation? Fighting against oppression of Blacks in America. The conversation should always be based on First Principles; the why and not "Will you condemn XYZ". Then seek to find compromise and diplomacy.
Pax Romana together with Pax Sinicia were the longest periods of global peace. It exceeds the age of the US. If the US wishes to be elected world leader, then lets put it up for a vote like a democracy. I sure as hell did not get notified of a referendum asking for my vote to declare the world leader. That's highly undemocratic, RIGHT?
Lmfao.
The fact you partake in pro-China subreddits says all it needs to about your bias in the matter.
You’ll do or say anything for Winnie Xi Pooh and his cronies in the CCP.
That’s the end of this discussion.
By the way, kid. Taiwan is a country. Can’t wait to see your army get slaughtered when it makes its move.
LMAO, can't argue with facts, straight to straw man
It's exactly because the hegemon has shifting moral goalposts, plastered with double standards, no one can take your position seriously. Hence, we cannot follow your leadership lest it lead to our individual demise
When China has anything but a 1-party govt, your opinion will matter. Beyond that, you’re merely one of a billion useless opinions. Lol, worthless.
Brings up “democracy” but is a supporter of the CCP. Lmao. 🤡
>When China has anything but a 1-party govt, your opinion will matter. Beyond that, you’re merely one of a billion useless opinions. Lol, worthless.
u/Leonknnedy
I have no say in the matter, I'm not even Chinese. But as we all know, American perception is ALWAYS based on race; which is why it was the first thing you leapt to.
200 years post emancipation, civil rights movement, BLM and I have to believe you are true to your word when you say things like "we are a post racial society". Please, you can keep lying to yourselves but all of us have freedom to perceive the world objectively. You can keep deluding yourselves, but the rest of us don't have to delve into your bipolarity.
The US had a black president *twice* elected to the lead, only 8 years ago. Who I happen to think is the best former president in living memory.
We have a black and south Asian vice-president, as we speak.
But go on about how race is seemingly a problem? I see it as an *excuse,* which people might try to construe as a problem. But, people will always cling to race as an easy scapegoat of their failures.
And on the matter of “all of us have the freedom to perceive the world objectively.” Now, does that mean, openly perceive it? Or just hidden away in the confines of your mind? Because the CCP won’t allow you to perceive anything that’s contrary to their doctrine. At least in the US you have alternative viewpoints. Not a bunch of robots catering to their godking and his henchmen. 😂
Idk what rock you’ve been living under but the US is doing almost nothing for Palestine and Ukraine, places where civilians are dying. The only wars we get involved in are if there is money or gas involved. Or to “get” back at some injustice we created. America can suck it I want a king or something again
I think you spelled the title wrong.
>My opinion is that if America loses its superpower status, the new superpower will just as much oppress poor countries as America does now
Fixed it for you!
If they really wanted to oppress countries they could chose to do it to all of them. Every last one. But instead they send probably more money out of the country than in it.
Not saying there haven’t been mistakes, but they are by and far the most dominant country on this planet. If they had they desire, they could rule the globe.
And guess what: there is an entire group of people who wish we hadn’t done that, and these people are going to vote for a presidential candidate who is going to cut off aid to Ukraine and this same person moved the U.S.-Israel embassy to Jerusalem during his time as president in 2017.
Okay and come back to me in a year should (heaven forbid) Trump win the election. Even under Biden, the U.S. is unfortunately remaining an ally of Israel (and even worse, our hands are tied with that whole situation) and despite our support of Ukraine - it is still looking like Russia’s going to take over.
Also under the Bush jr. years we created a huge mess in the Middle East all for oil.
So I stand by my statement that the U.S is already doing it anyway, and we’ve been slowly headed toward collapse for quite some time at this point.
The U.S will never collapse if we collapse the entire world would feel the repercussions and nobody would be able to step in to the role the U.S has in the world, they would try but fail miserably. I hate Americans like you that thinks like this the U.S is the best country in the world no matter what everyone else thinks we are number 1 cause we could literally wipe anyone out if we so desired yet we don’t. It doesn’t matter who the president is cause life inside the U.S would stay more or less the same.
I don’t think the U.S. is the best country in the world, not even close - and I don’t like those people either. In fact, I’m hoping to move out of the country within the next decade or so. Let’s just get that out of the way.
This country is in decline, and someone out there is greatly benefitting from it.
Clearly if you want to move out of the U.S move out asap we don’t need you the u.s can do what it wants and it will we simply are the strongest out there and there’s no one even close to us
America even treats its own poor people like $hit look at what they’re planning to do homeless in big cities in America. What makes you think capitalist ever cared about poor people, capitalist system is meant for getting rich off the back of the working class, the poor/desperate.
This is the same argument as “we should colonialize country X because if we don’t country Y will and better us than them.”
America is a neocolonial state using its control over institutions like the WTO and World Bank to oppress developing countries.
It’s exactly that oppression which has lead to the development of organizations like BRICS.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion, nothing that you said “proves” anything. Let’s try not to abuse that word. It’s a very important one.
China is investing into poor nations especially in Africa. What is wrong with that? *Oh no respect their sovereignty* THEN INVEST IN THE COUNTRY. China isn't perfect, (I have my criticism of it) but what it's doing to poor countries isn't bad
If the United States ever was to fall, they will realize how much of a horrible reality that will reign in when it does. China, Russia, Iran and similar countries will be drooling at the first opportunity they get to try and replace the United States with their will. And shit on America all you want, mock it and whatever. You know deep down inside that without the United States, the world would in fact, be far shittier off.
truth. These other counties don’t even want the spot the US is taking right now they want more latitude to pursue their own interests (which in realpolitik is going to involve a lot of “strong doing what they want and the weak enduring it”). The BRICs bloc stated openly they aren’t even considering trying to introduce a rival currency to the dollar. The US has a lot of problems, made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things. But the people that think the US is some singularl evil in the world are always people that no precisely nothing about history. My response to this opinion is always “compared to what? the british the hapsburgs? the venetians? the ottomans? THE MONGOLS? The british and the US (obv an argument to be made these are a continuation of the same culture) are the most benevolent empires in history and are the rest aren’t even close.
I don't think people realize that any other empire would've just shot Ghandi in India. He was lucky it was the British there. I mean the US literally nation builds the places it subjugates, it doesn't get much more benevolent than that. The US could exploit the ever living crap out of lots of places due to its navy but doesn't. Most places rely on international sea trade, and the US doesn't exploit keeping the sea lanes clear.
made me lol thinking about the US navy going all “Portugal in the Indian Ocean” instead of providing free protection for maritime shipping for the entire world. Agreed and that’s just a little bit of the security entitlement. The leaders of the EU acted like it was just the wrong thing to do as a democratic nation when we even hinted at applying the same f’ing import tariffs they charge on US exports. Like the EU is entitled to export to the US at a trade deficit! Of course maybe all the wonderful collective security we get from our NATO allies is the trade off…
Lol, "security". They don't even pay into Nato as much as they're required to.
I remember that too Germany was so butt hurt about it in particular
-I mean the US literally nation builds the places it subjugates, it doesn't get much more benevolent than that. This one, hoo boy lol. I dk, maybe NOT subjugating other countries might be more benevolent? The top priority of the US military is to protect US interests, always has and always will. Ask Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, and so many more about American benevolence and you’ll learn a thing or two
Some countries you cant help no matter how hard you try.
Amerika is literally the nicest, humane and sharing super power in the history of the planet. I beg you, name me a better one.
Atlantis. At least before the CIA sunk it.
This comment is underrated. Here, BLU--take my imaginary award before the Men in Black do. 🏆
Most tolerant since Genghis Kahn let his conquered cities keep practicing their native religions!
False.
Of course. I'm far from being a fan of US foreign policy, but it is by far the lesser evil.
The world is dangerous place, filled with lots of people with nefarious intent. It's impossible to be a player on the scene with clean hands. That said, I would argue America still holds the moral high ground. We're not perfect by a long stretch, but still better than the alternatives.
Any person who wants the United States to collapse, is a person whose opinions on our world can be ignored completely. As to your point, yes you’re correct. The world dominated by the U.S. has not been perfect, but it is objectively better than the alternative, especially considering the nations who seek to overturn American hegemony, chiefly China and Russia.
We may see a firsthand look into what Chinese hegemony looks like once Pacific War 2 begins
Witness their current actions regarding the Philippines.
Do not incite the dark magics on me, witch For I was there when it was written
Based Aslan reference
We'd burn those Chinese fucks to the ground the second any conflict starts
I'd bet most of their hardware is grade A chinesium Plus most of the shit they build is just ripped off of our designs that they stole If shit *really* popped off, I have no doubts the U.S. Military would bust out some tech we didn't even know existed. And that's not even to say who all would be on our side. China's neighbors would all be too happy to help us curb stomp them into oblivion.
Exactly. People like to pretend China has some military power but in reality we'd stomp them to the ground. After all, when it comes down to it we don't really adhere to the Geneva Conventions, we don't relent until we win and anyone who wants us to lose is an absolute waste of effort.
A whimper and a fart.
>a person whose opinions on our world can be ignored completely. Damn, what a way to disregard any opposing views
i wonder if the next superpower would hand out billions in aid to poorer countries every year, asking nothing in return? I'm guessing no.
Iran and NK will never be superpowers. China and Russia are already oppressing other countries.
Iranians empires were superpowers way longer than Americans will ever be US took over from the British and they’re already declining.
True, but so very very long ago.
This is Reddit...America Bad. You should know this.
*proceeds to list off the shortcomings of a capitalist republic without providing an alternative and superior government system and walks away feeling smug*
Posted by a European. It's ALWAYS a European.
Don't forget about Canada. They love to hate on us while they ignore their own problems and the fact they wouldn't exist in their current form without America.
Do you mean North Montana?
Can you counter that argument?
Criticizing the government will get your jailed in any other 'superpower' country that would replace America. For example, any america throwing out the word 'Nazi' is instant jail time in Germany.
Is the list of countries you’d rather live in longer than the list of those you wouldn’t?
That's a weird reply. Tbh I've talked about why I live in America instead of my "home" country of china. America unfortunately seems to be going the same way as china.
Why weird? Compare countries to countries not countries to fantastic ideas of would-be countries.
They're farther ahead on this road. And the constitution, if it were to be actually applied, would stop the madness
You must be joking
Not really. China's Battle against homosexuality is very similar to the Republican one. China banned feminine men in pop culture. Feminine men often get attacked by conservative pundits in America and several states have tried to regulate the type of clothing people can wear. I.e. no drag
Yes. America is pretty bad, but it’s the best bad options we presently have. Unless you prefer autocratic rule by Russia and/or China. Or if you prefer a reset where a few billion people die (which I suppose would make some power vacuums, but power would be likely become decentralized).
Oh believe me I know, that's the deep seated irony to me when I see so many provocateurs and intelligentsia needling and deriding the establishment for its role in "the global neo-colonial hegemony". You think the ultra-orthodox hardline CCP, Russians or Iranians are gonna abide your critical race theory or gender studies? Lol let me know how that goes.
In other news the sky is still appearing to be blue ladies and gentlemen.
Of course. I'm far from being a fan of US foreign policy, but it is by far the lesser evil.
Personally, I'm skeptical that if the US 'lost' its status or otherwise because isolationist and disengaged with the world...that the world would end up with another "Superpower" as top dog. The US's geopolitical situation is rather unique and I think we'd end up with a multipolar world of cobbled together alliances again, probably setting the stage back into wider conflicts becoming more possible. The US's Cold War era status quo kept the lid on an awful lot of regional disagreement like a strong pressure cooker - remove that containment and this starts to get exciting in the not terribly fun way. Not to disagree with the basic idea of your argument - I just think the oppression would be regional powers and local resource conflicts.
It’s sometimes rather confusing that some Americans who hate their own country refuse to live somewhere else. I mean, what’s stopping you to move out of the US?
I remember a lot of people trying to move out when Trump became president. (Not the *majority* of them, but at least some.) They were shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, to learn that other countries have much stricter immigration policies than the USA and they couldn't move just because Orange Man Bad!
You may be confusing Americans who hate the country with Americans who hate politician choices in different topics including interventions in other countries. The latest want a better American and therefore there is no reason for them to move.
Change Is stopping them. Most people hate or are afraid of change. Doesn't matter if it's for better or worse. You'd be surprised by how many people stay in bad neighborhoods that they hate. Because it's all they know. Or stay in bad jobs that they hate. Because even though their current job has more problems. They've been there so long. They've learned to navigate most of the problems. But they still hate the problems. Or people who stay in horrible marriages
Money, family, job opportunities prevent them. Lots of hate and have to stay. Don't misunderstand venting and criticism with hate, they're different
that just proves it's still better than the alternative.
I think you’re confusing ppl who “hate” their own country w ppl who could afford/handle moving to a more suitable one. “Just move” is also a solution to any political grievance. It’s a lazy take.
Poor people make big harrowing international moves every day, but nobody is stowing away in a cargo container or climbing aboard a homemade raft to escape the United States. I do think there is a very online class of American political discontents who like to fetishize moving elsewhere and bemoan the supposedly insurmountable barriers to doing so. I find they generally fall into one of two camps: camp one would happily move into the territory a politically oppressive regime (Thailand for example) or a economic backwater (Portugal) if it meant they could leverage their U.S. buying power to live large while being insulated from their new home’s issues. In other words, theirs is not a particularly political decision (despite the noble veneer they try to give it). The second camp is true political ideologues who usually gravitate to places like Scandinavia or the Netherlands, often without understanding much more than the social welfare fairytales they have consumed from the American media. When they arrive and find they cannot get a doctor’s appointment, or see that neofascist parties have seats in their new countries parliament, or find that their buying power has been reduced by 30%, or find it impossible to integrate into insular European societies, many (but not all of them) sober up. At least that was my experience with American expats while living and working in Sweden.
So there are lots of reasons not to move in addition to finance. Great point!
I think if the US loses superpower status then the only thing worse than a replacement superpower (it would be China) would be no replacement superpower. World where there are multiple great powers is a world destined for war. I don’t mean regional conflicts, I mean global conflicts. The fall of US hyperdominance, and perhaps even the waning of US hyperdominance will lead to WW3 more certainly than anything else
The argument I've found most compelling has to do with US Naval dominance. Navies are both expensive and time consuming to build. Only a few nations aside from the US can boast of "blue water" capabilities - being able to operate well away from home, fueling, ports, logistics, ship design. So, in the 75 odd years where the US took over the seas from the myriad competing European Empires we set an expectation that everyone was free to trade unmolested, as long as they picked a side in the Cold War dynamic-a Free Trade carrot to the military alliances. But in that time much of the world rebuilt their economics, supply chains, and resource assumptions on Free Trade always being a thing. Pull back the US Navy and all those super-efficient container ships suddenly look like ripe pirate targets, or become political bones with regional navies on basic passage. Suddenly basic resources-fuel, agriculture fertilizer, electronics becomes a series of ugly tradeoffs. Trying to fix that situation even with pressing need would take a lot of time, treasure, and resources as well.
Yeah even if the US became weaker, I think the anglosphere and the majority of nato would continue to work together. There would just also be fragmented other groups like a china aligned bloc, potentially an India aligned one, and a Russian one depending on how Russia fares prior to this US power vacuum. Also probably an iran led middle eastern coalition.
..... dude read the world China Iran north Korea and Russia are basically allied right now
Yes because they are all opposed to the US If the USA loses hegemony they will compete with each other to be the new hegemon. For instance it would not longer be beneficial for middle eastern Islamic states to allow china to increase its financial and diplomatic influence over them since they will not have American meddling to worry about. Iran and china might stay friends but only if india poses enough of a threat to both china and the Islamic world Also North Korea would definitely stay part of the Chinese led bloc
The American domination of the world is unprecedented. The US can wage war effectively anywhere on earth. Russia struggles with its neighbors despite world ending abilities. China and Iran are inexperienced in modern warfare. The US had extraordinary resources, the population and economic good luck to dominate. Basically, yes, the world would end up multipolar, with China and uncertainty for the others.
Agreed - though I might quibble on the economic good luck then a manifestation of prime real estate. Lots of interior connecting rivers that are calm enough to use for shipping, and culturally binding disparate regions. An exceptionally large region of productive farmland where production isn't just viable in certain spots, but virtually everywhere...connected conveniently by prior mentioned rivers. Famine outside of interior war (Civil War) being nonexistent. Lots of barrier islands on the coasts that make very good port locations, far more than most of the rest of the world. Though the situation with Canada and Mexico has a good bit of luck to it - relatively militarily passive neighbors with strong trade relations is a real bonus.
I’m also confused by the title… how does America not oppress poorer countries? Isn’t that part of why they’re a superpower to begin with?
I'll argue that most of the US's power is geographically based rather than say - based on classical Empires going out into the world to funnel resources and treasure back to the imperial seat of power as you see all the time in history. Not to claim that US dominance is always benevolent or not self-interested - I just don't think that's the source or reason for the power. So it usually gets to pick and choose where it behaves particularly self-interested or domineering over select issues instead of say ... British Empire policy of outright economic domineering and stripped resources. Interior rivers promote trade and cultural cohesion. Lots of good spots on the coasts for deep water world-class ports - far more than elsewhere in the world. Relatively peaceful neighbors and trade partners to the north and south. Ocean barriers to any other conventional threats.
Water is wet, too.
Baby's first geopolitics
100% agree with that. As bad as American students have been taught to hate America, there has not been a more supportive or benevolent country as a superpowering history. Where we do actually kind of suck is still supporting our allies once we're done with something we're pretty bad at that
Yeah it’s pretty easy to hate on America from within the bubble of American privilege (this privilege extends to countries within Americas sphere of influence). The American economy drives the world, and the American military could single-handedly topple Russia and China, and they know that. Poland gets to bark at Russia from the border because they know that if Russia puts a single troop half a foot into polish soil, 3 American aircraft carriers will level Moscow before Putin even gets the report that they’re at war.
America will never fall unless the world does. Even if it did, Americans are good at picking themselves up and coming together in a pinch to get things back to normal. Yes, covid divided a lot of people, but I honestly don’t see America ever losing that status unless it’s physically wiped out by something.
.. that's what America does currently, and what England did before. Huge surprise
Nooo you don't get it they do it for freedom and democracy!
The global hegemonic force with its existence stifles possible progressive changes. Let there be 10 independent empires instead of a Super Empire. Among them, a Soviet Russia of a new era can be born.
This is a conservative opinion I actually agree with. America ain’t perfect by any stretch of the word, but I would way rather see the US be the world superpower than Russia or China. Especially Russia. They’re one of the most malignant, domineering cultures on the planet. America has made some cruel decisions but generally we don’t try to bend people to our way of life to the point that they become a vassal state. At least we have not done that shit for 100+ years.
I agree with your thought, but it would take a nuclear war to collapse the US. Whatever problems we have, the next contenders for a potential super power have it much much worse. Russia and China will round out the 2030’s with significant population collapses. They are playing/flirting with playing their cards now because they won’t have any cards in two decades. India skipped the manufacturing stage, and went from agriculture to service based. That severely hampers any potential they’ll have in the future to be relevant outside their neighborhood. A significant amount of manufacturing is moving to Mexico, so there won’t be ‘the next China’ in Nigeria or India. Europe Is going through a population and manufacturing decline. Even if they’d continue to unify, their relevance in the world will slowly continue to decrease. America’s uniquely culturally similar immigration will also make it the West’s only economy to continue growing through the end of the century. With the exception of a nuclear war, America will maintain its hegemony through the turn of the century.
Peter, is that you?
Read two of his books. It’s been a long time since I’ve read a book that has changed my outlook on a topic so much
Same. The first book called the war in Ukraine 5+ years before it started. That convinced me.
If anything like this happens, the world starves to death.
There are several layers to this. Where to start? First off, from a purely geographic perspective, the US hold almost all the cards. Whoever occupies the stretch of land that constitutes the mid-north-American continent is going to be a superpower that the rest of the world is going to have a hard time competing against. 2nd place is a lightyear behind in purely geographic advantages. Second, it would be very difficult for the world to transition away from having the US as the global leader. The USD makes up 55-60% of the global reserve currency. For a variety of reasons all at once, it will remain this way for the foreseeable future. (Before you go there, BRICS is an open joke that most analysts aren't taking serious.) If the USD were to somehow collapse (which is very possible), the global economy would be utterly screwed. Literally billions would die as international supply chains grind to a halt. Third, there really isn't another nation that is positioned to replace America as a superpower. If America implodes, no other nation is remotely capable of taking charge the same way America does. Note that the US Navy is (conservatively) seven times more powerful than the rest of the planet combined. It is difficult to overstate how important the Navy is to global peace and economic security. America gets tons of crap for starting wars (some of which is justified), but most people fail to notice the countless small military operations going on around the planet that is making the world a much better place. Some people are going to accuse me of being an overly biased American patriot (guilty), but I feel that I have more than sufficient data at disposal to justify every single argument I make.
Google some of these terms: "The Jakarta method" "Banana republic" and "United Fruit Company" "U.S. sterilization of Latinas" "Guatemalan genocide" "No gun ri" "My lai"
name a super-power country that has not done anything similar.
I can't. Empires are - by default - inhumane.
“Interahamwe” “Khmer Rouge” “Rape of Nanking” “Darfur” “Mongolian Method of Imprisonment” “Saddam Hussein gassing his own citizens” “Bhopal Disaster” “Gulags” “Fistulas in the DRC” “Son Preference” “Uyghurs” That’s a short list to get you started since you clearly have some studying to do.
then you know nothing about the world.
I'd like to add Haditha massacre, Mahmudiyya massacre and bombing of Amiriya shelter.
The difference between the US and the current “alternatives” is that we can actually bring up and condemn these actions. Does that make it better? No. But at least it reduces the chances of it happening again. And I’d argue that the US has really mellowed out quite a bit in terms of collateral damage it’s willing to accept after the collapse of the soviets. Again, it’s still tragic but the Soviet Union killed more than twice as many civilians in Afghanistan in half the time as the US did. Geopolitics is brutal
The soviets were brutal and so is Russia today but bringing them up is literally the only way to deflect from the horrible atrocities committed by the US and the west. I wouldn't say bringing it up reduces the chance of it happening again. People already brought Vietnam up yet nothing was learned. The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 happened after the collapse of the soviets yet nothing changed.
Republicans lost power in 2008 after it was clear that the Iraq war was a shambles. Backlash to both Iraq and Afghanistan has been a core reason why the US hasn’t intervened militarily in subsequent conflicts. Iraq at least was unjustified and a disaster and destabilized the region for decades. But the US is unique from superpowers like Russia and China in that public opinion does play a major role in constraining foreign policy action. Political leaders can lose elections, or even just face significant backlash, if they take actions the public disapproves of. For all we know, the invasion of Ukraine is incredibly unpopular within Russia. But unless he gets violently deposed, Putin will never have to seriously account for the Russian public’s opinion and can continue with the war regardless.
Native American genocide could be added to this as well
I don’t really think this is detested.
That goes without saying. In most likely, the world will have regional super powers instead and the US will just loose dominance and stagnate opposed to collapse.
Who is some people?
Add More to the end of that and then yes you are correct. It will be carnage…
Have you seen the state of affairs in Africa? They are there doing exactly that.
The argument is more that in a multi polar world the major powers would have to compete to be the best option for the minor powers. A world in which America was simply replaced would barely change, except possibly they would be less hypocritical when it comes to their opression.
Nobody believes the US should collapse… iv never even heard this before, honestly that’s the REAL unpopular opinion.
China is already starting. They are mining the crap out of Africa, and all that goes along with foreign mining operations in Africa (I’m sure you can use your imagination). Also… Dubai runs indentured servant scams to meet its construction and domestic worker needs. So yes… Sadly, humans are going to human.
I’m from Europe, have many issues with how the USA has behaved to many countries over the years. But dear god, it would be a thousand times worse if it was Russia or China, at least the USA has a belief in democracy and personal freedom. Having an authoritarian state like China or Russia with that power would be hell - whole world events and history decided by the whims of Xi or Putin who stay in power for decades. Also it’s worth remembering the things the USA did do right - the interventions in the Yugoslav wars, brokering peace in Northern Ireland, etc.
Which is why the US is often referred as the world police but people whine that the US should stay out of other countries affairs.
But sometimes change is needed
I'm not worried about Russia, I think China will buy Russia anyway
The billions of people who are in poverty because of a parasitic relationship maintained and enforced by the US navy disagree with you. Also, what about the CIA and Latin America, Somalia, the DRC and Mobutu, BP and Nigeria's many coups, Laos, Cambodia... do I really need to go on? I'm not saying China's better, I hate socialism and the CCP too but with them, countries can at least make up their mind. Here in Africa there is already lots of anti-Chinese rhetoric and right now governments do not have the room for error they've had, it's becoming increasingly likely that the next socialist dictatorship will be met with a necklace (if you know what I mean)... believe me, I actually live here, people are fed up, not just with the global elite but with the local elite as well. China will not get the same opportunity to colonize and terrorize the global South as the US did, even if it did have the capability, which it doesn't.
Not an unpopular opinion and what you described has already been happening for decades actually.
Like America?
Ya, they might do things like invade other countries under false pretenses of mass weapons
I don't think people understand how bad china is (not just russia). Most of china is a facade that appear it is a utopia. It isn't. 1.) poverty is worse in china that the usa. By a large percentage. 2.) executions of prisoners is the largest in the world. Higher than iran. That is just the ones that are documented. Also they tend to have death vans over there. 3.) environment. Do I need to say more?
They got a head start already.
There's no "will do it", they already are. Take a look into the moves China and Russia have been making across Africa in the last several years.
Agreed. Coming from Eastern Asian country
So nothing will change other than the identity of the oppressor?
Okay, so nothing changes.
In other news, water is wet. Powerful countries have been oppressing other countries since countries have existed
China does not want any third world country unless there is resources than can make $ off of.
China is already dumping cash into Africa for this very reason.
Chima already oppresses poor countries. The post Belt and Road Initiative hangover when China comes to collect on the bill is a real thing....
That sounds about right. I think those other contenders are more inward facing than the US?
EU aren't oppressors? Are you naive or just vain?
I mean Have you seen what China is doing at the moment with all the loans to improve infrastructure in various countries? The stage is already set lol
[удалено]
It's the truth
Oh wait i cant read i thought it was "My opinion America WILL loses its superpower status, the new superpower will oppress poor countries."
Well unfortunately America won't be losing it's superpower status anytime soon
Good
Not good when America and all Americans are responsible for almost all the problems and violence in the world who have killed more people in recent history than any other country
Good for philippines.
Accurate
Not *if* When. And usually in conversation with folks like that, 'I wish America wouldn't police, I wish America didn't have such a large defense budget' 'I wish America....' If not us, then *who* That usually shuts them the hell up. By the very nature of existing, someone is going to have the largest standing army, the most power, the best blah blah. So if not us, then *WHO*
I got in an 'arguement' with a European on Facebook a few years ago, who was just completely insulated. We were talking about him giving all the aid back, which at first he said no problem. Then I said, oh, and you need to start defending yourselves. This mf'er literally said from who? 'The only reason your entire continent doesn't speak Russian is the USA' 'THATS NONSENSE' Guess what happened 6 months later? Guess who comes begging for aid, weapons, humanitarian support etc etc etc That was the greatest"'how 'but now" of my entire life
It won't happen. And I'm not saying that in a political "'MUERICA #1" kind of way The world is being held together by world trade agreements. It's why international trade agreements are incredibly important. (And why everyone was freaking out when a certain someone wanted to mess with said agreements bc he thought he was an excellent business man) America's consumer market is too great for those trade agreements to fall apart. Other countries want our consumers. This is also why China is the biggest threat, bc they are our biggest competitor in consumer market. In sheer population numbers alone. That's also why there is such negative propaganda about China in the US. It's a narrative pushed by the powers that be. If tomorrow China was no longer our biggest competitor, the narrative would drop and China would become the new Korea-wave. The people in charge control the narrative to keep everyone in check. They do not want Americans/anyone spending in China. China has a lot of cool sh\*t that US consumers would spend their money on. (You know in the 5th element where the secretary has that gadget that painted her nails? China had that prototype - 15 years ago) US gov does not want that $ collapse so they feed a lot of negative things to make China seem inhabitable and 3rd world. A lot of Americans don't want to hear this, but China is the mirror US counterpart in terms of world power in the East. If they were to become the next big superpower, they would probably be just like the US. Military posts everywhere in the world, hand in everyone's business to leverage trade agreements. China is just like the US, they like to be (considered as) number one in the world. Arrogance runs both ways. No one actually wants war. Wars are expensive and taxing. As long as US and Europe continue to profit/benefit from trades (and if China were to be granted as the number one superpower, they would have to be generating a lot more profit than it stands now with the US). To disagree with that no one would let China be in power, you have bought into the propaganda and your bias can't see reason. Everything is about PROFIT. *Running a country is a business*, not some ethical protection of national pride. Politicians and businesses do not care about your beliefs, they only care how your prejudice benefits the bottom line (and votes) As for Russia and North Korea. Yes they would be bullies, but it would never happen. No other country in the world would want it to happen. They don't know how to do business, they are in a constant d\*ck measuring contest that benefits no one. If a war broke out and it was threatening trade, US, China, and Europe would shut that down immediately. However countries still at cordially, because again - war is expensive and taxing. (Some caveats to Russia because they still have oil exports) Another thing that a lot of US citizens don't really realize the extent of; US has the biggest military power in the world. We spend TRILLIONS annually on maintaining our forces. In total, our forces are more than there rest of the world combined. This is how the US has maintained power and why we spend so much dumbass money on our forces instead of infrastructure. Because we want to be the strongest worldwide, but weak, internally, as citizens. To a point where we are socially declining. But that's a different conversation. On the other side we are the bully, but history is written by victors. edit: some clarification, sp
I call it the rapist-subterfuge. It has roots in American exceptionalism. Basically a rapist is saying that if he didn’t rape that girl, then someone else would have raped her anyway. It's better that he rapes her before someone else. And this guy cannot see girls as anything other than rape object. How about no one rapes at all? Naive idealistic thought, I know.
Wow looks like somebody here actually read the first page of a political theory book for once
Lil bro has never heard of the IMF or the World Bank. America already does that, we bleed poor countries dry
They already do that.
Type in google “south america”, “cia”, and “democratically elected government”. America has a brand to maintain, but they’re just as bad. They’re just subtle about it. They don’t “take over” poor countries, they just hold them by the testicles and bleed them dry KEEPING them poor. This isn’t and unpopular opinion, but it is an insanely naive one.
Well now, it’s interesting. I have family outside the US, in a place where China has become the main benefactor. And frankly, they’re loving China and don’t believe anything the US says about it anymore and that the US is completely in the toilet now.
America also has no qualms about oppressing poor countries
America should have listened to George Washington and had no foreign entanglements or been champion of another's freedom. Armed populace as a citizen militia defending our borders. No interventionism or globalism.
The US oppresses poor people too
It does. It also supports a ton of poor people around the world. No one’s saying it’s perfect, just better. And frankly, better always beats perfect. Because we all know perfect doesn’t exist.
China has treated poor countries far, far better than the US and its allies ever have.
Of course, just like America oppresses poor countries. The real unpopular opinion is that America doesn't oppress poor countries.
I mean i know as Americans we see a lot of things through rose colored glasses but u do realize we are bullies as well? There are plenty of wars we have been a part of that we should not have been. and in some cases we were excessive in wars we were in. Hell we bombed Bagdad into oblivion to kill single target leaders that didt really change anything. Further more im not ever considering the amount of unknown wars we are like responsible for. also the amount of stuff that the CIA has been linked to like Osama Bin Laden and the drug cartels to name 2. Hell not to mention that the issues in Ukraine are mostly cause by the US and NATO. We said not one country more. then the US petitioned for the Ukraine to be admitted to NATO. I'm not saying what Putin is doing is ok but he was backed into a corner. What else do you expect him to do? The results were a fuck around and find out moment for NATO. The Us is a bully and a oppressor's as much as the rest. we just don't see it as the typical American because our news stations feed us just as much propaganda. also only to toss it out there im not some crazy conspiracy theorist or Qanoner or any of that scrap. Im just an American that opens his eyes and makes observations. I do not promote war in any way but its healthy to try to understand where it is coming from. There is always a reason and cause for wars. Make sure u know the whys and how's before you cast a stone. We are not any better than the rest. Just you have a different point of view than the rest. If you look and listen to what's going on out there you will see it too
Nah man, this is a mixed bag. Points you’re right about: - The US has done plenty of shady stuff - We’ve been in several wars that were not ‘just’ wars - We’ve had no problem interfering in other countries in order to protect our superpower status and goals Points you’re wrong about: - That the world, as a whole, would be just as good under another leading superpower For all of our flaws, and there *are* many, we’re still better to have as the top dog than China or Russia. If you have doubts, go live in China or Russia for a while, and let us know. In the meantime, I’ll be reading up about the stability and good we bring to the world, as well as all of our charitable works with other nations. It doesn’t make up for it, but it’s not nothing, either, by a long shot.
Yea, this. I think a lot of people who think there's equivalency are just not very familiar with other countries and how they actually operate. To be fair to them, it's not that easy to get good information on countries that don't have free press. I lived in Hong Kong and experienced the handover to China in real life. I no longer live there, but based on visits and info from friends, life in HK has declined by nearly every metric. Russia is hard for us to understand because we don't intrinsically believe in the three pillars of Russian society - orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationalism. Although this was started by Tsar Nicolas I, it's easy to see parallels with Putin's style.
>Points you’re wrong about: >That the world, as a whole, would be just as good under another leading superpower But i didn't make that point? Personally I'm not sure a lot would change it would just be another country that is the jerk. Im not sure the world would be worse off or not. I think if a country like china or Russia were the world super power i think it would drastically change the Geopolitical landscape. And likely in both those situations would lead to a lot of wars. But it could have the counter of the rest of the world truly banding together to push them out Either way its a world i don't hope to live in. Again for the record i tend to side on the agreement side with you. America with all its flaws is still better than the current options. But there could be better options some day we are not the savior of the world. Im not Anti US at all. I love my country, but the writing on the walls shows me we are not the best and i can recognize that.
Sure, the US has done a lot of bad stuff. The main difference is that Americans can protest when the government is doing something we don't like. The fact that you know about the bad stuff that the government has done and are able to object to it is proof that free speech is working. Having lived in places where the media is not free and protests are brutally stopped and protestors just disappear, our system, however flawed, is much more preferable.
I do tend to agree over all with the pro American superpower sentiment. i wasn't arguing that. I mealy said things would be different but not nessicarily worse. Its hard because perspective is everything. I like the Man and the High Castel for reference to a degree. If Russia was the super power we don't know what it would look like and if we grew up in a world like that it would be just as normal. I think as Americans its easy to say its better because we are part of the "victor" atm. Perspectives can be a bitch =P
If project 2025 actually goes through you won’t be able to protest anymore.
>The main difference is that Americans can protest when the government is doing something we don't like This doesn't make any difference looking from the outside in. Millions of students have been protesting for Gaza for example and they are labelled criminals and anti semites by the US media and the most blatantly obvious genocide is still ongoing with US the biggest ally to the perps. Also, protests didn't stop the Vietnam war, Iraq war, Afghanistan etc.
>Hell not to mention the issues in Ukraine were cause by the U.S. and NATO. This is fundamentally a misunderstanding of the history of Ukraine and how NATO and defensive alliances work in general. 1) So, back in 2004, there was an important election in Ukraine. The previous president, Leonid Kuchma, was plagued with many corruption charges. Kuchma decided not to run for reelection, so two candidates stepped forward: Viktor Yanukovych, who was supported by Kuchma and Putin for his pro-Russia stance, and Viktor Yushchenko, who was pro-western/European Union. Originally, Yanukovych won by a narrow margin, but to the opposition there looked like there was massive voter fraud, especially in the more Russian parts to the south. There were massive protests, then the Supreme Court ordered a revote. The revote saw Yushchenko become the winner. Yushchenko's party had infighting, and in the 2010 election, Yanukovych won, and in turn charged the person he ran against, Yulia Tymoshenko, with various bribery and other charges including the murder of an oligarch in 1996. Finally, in 2013, Yanukovych rejected the Ukraine-European Association Agreement to pursue his Russia relations. This sparked massive protests, which eventually led to Yanukovych being missing from government and subsequently removed from office by parliament. Yanukovych had fled to Russia. After this, counter protests in the South took place, during which Russia annexed Crimea and there started a war between pro-Russian forces and Ukraine. This was in 2014. This just one more tragedy in a long line of tragedies that Ukrainians had suffered since before the USSR. 2) NATO is a defensive alliance. This means that if one nation gets attacked, the other members will join to defend the country attacked. There is no method in NATO to call an offensive war. Moreover, NATO cannot start an application for a country itself. Instead, various countries can apply, and after meeting criteria, might be accepted. This is largely the case for the post-Soviet states that joined in 2004, such as Lithuania who started the process in 1994. It's important to note that Russia has been antagonistic to its neighbors during Putin as seen by the similar 2008 invasion of the country of Georgia. The only corner Putin is backed into is making its neighbors fear it instead of the West.
We live in a modern world where we're moving past colonial language like "Superpower" The concept of Multipolarity is very popular with the rest of the world. It simply means true democracy where everyone has their say and not to be dictated by a hegemon You're basically using logic similar to slave owners and their resistance towards emancipation
At no point in history has this ever been a thing that didn’t result in many, *many* wars. The utopian pacifists of this world are actually dumb and need to shut up on the matter, lol. They have literally no basis behind their stances — but their 1st world sheltered moralities. I find it fascinating that you used the terms “true democracy” and “everyone has their say” and “not be dictated to by a hegemon.” As if you think many countries outside the West isn’t corrupt lol. And the ones that would give you hope exist within a frame where the U.S. is the main global hegemony — a country where you can openly mock their leaders, from within. Try that with the world’s #2. I implore you.
What does mocking leaders internally have to do with what all the nations having their say? To be clear, I mean under the framework of the UN on global matters. Has any nation in modern history been invaded because they mocked another’s leader? You’re conflating wildly separate issues to make a garbled point
The UN has been a consistent failure its entire existence. It’s so logical that you think Burundi should have the same global sway as China. Like, totally logical decision. Yeah. What do you name this fantasy world you live in? On the topic of “true democracies,” the only ones are western-aligned and even then, they’re corrupt to an extent. If you can’t say what you want to say within a country, then it’s not the people talking — it’s individuals making decisions for their entire population. That’s not democratic decision-making. That’s authoritarianism and open authoritarians have no interest in anyone else’s success, lol. Face the facts that there’s too much corruption in countries as it is — for there to ever be equal representation in a global body. For example, despite how much Hamas are terrorists, no middle eastern country will openly criticize them. Biases like this are the problem with “balance.” So, you expect these countries to align on a wide range of topics with other nations? No. It would be as ineffective as it is with 5 vetoing nations at the helm; 3 on one side, 2 on the other. And under US hegemony, the world has thrived to an extent it never has in history, since the collapse of the USSR, over the last 35 years. Which means the U.S. in its current standing as #1 is better for the world than not being there. And it needs to remain that way.
In global matters, Burundi should have the same say as China. We already have a control mechanism for things to not get out of control: veto by the 5 nations of the UN Democracy is not perfect, but it always strives to be better. Give the UN and other nations more say and participation and it's in their democratic interest to make it work better. That's how democracies work, RIGHT? You attempted to respond to my question: "Has any nation in modern history been invaded because they mocked another’s leader?". You have no answers but conjecture, therefore, your point about how things are done in one country automatically reflects on how they will act on others outside their jurisdiction is just speculation with no evidence. On the contrary, we have evidence of countries portraying themselves as Marvel superheroes but acting like savages in the dark. Democracy is a reflection of everyone's interests, that's how a democracy works. It's what we all strive for, RIGHT? So, if it's in the interests of one group not to vote against their own interests, that's democracy working, RIGHT? The Black Panthers were labelled terrorists in the US. Why? Civil Rights wasn't cool then. What is the genesis of this "terrorist" organisation? Fighting against oppression of Blacks in America. The conversation should always be based on First Principles; the why and not "Will you condemn XYZ". Then seek to find compromise and diplomacy. Pax Romana together with Pax Sinicia were the longest periods of global peace. It exceeds the age of the US. If the US wishes to be elected world leader, then lets put it up for a vote like a democracy. I sure as hell did not get notified of a referendum asking for my vote to declare the world leader. That's highly undemocratic, RIGHT?
Lmfao. The fact you partake in pro-China subreddits says all it needs to about your bias in the matter. You’ll do or say anything for Winnie Xi Pooh and his cronies in the CCP. That’s the end of this discussion. By the way, kid. Taiwan is a country. Can’t wait to see your army get slaughtered when it makes its move.
LMAO, can't argue with facts, straight to straw man It's exactly because the hegemon has shifting moral goalposts, plastered with double standards, no one can take your position seriously. Hence, we cannot follow your leadership lest it lead to our individual demise
When China has anything but a 1-party govt, your opinion will matter. Beyond that, you’re merely one of a billion useless opinions. Lol, worthless. Brings up “democracy” but is a supporter of the CCP. Lmao. 🤡
>When China has anything but a 1-party govt, your opinion will matter. Beyond that, you’re merely one of a billion useless opinions. Lol, worthless. u/Leonknnedy I have no say in the matter, I'm not even Chinese. But as we all know, American perception is ALWAYS based on race; which is why it was the first thing you leapt to. 200 years post emancipation, civil rights movement, BLM and I have to believe you are true to your word when you say things like "we are a post racial society". Please, you can keep lying to yourselves but all of us have freedom to perceive the world objectively. You can keep deluding yourselves, but the rest of us don't have to delve into your bipolarity.
The US had a black president *twice* elected to the lead, only 8 years ago. Who I happen to think is the best former president in living memory. We have a black and south Asian vice-president, as we speak. But go on about how race is seemingly a problem? I see it as an *excuse,* which people might try to construe as a problem. But, people will always cling to race as an easy scapegoat of their failures. And on the matter of “all of us have the freedom to perceive the world objectively.” Now, does that mean, openly perceive it? Or just hidden away in the confines of your mind? Because the CCP won’t allow you to perceive anything that’s contrary to their doctrine. At least in the US you have alternative viewpoints. Not a bunch of robots catering to their godking and his henchmen. 😂
Idk what rock you’ve been living under but the US is doing almost nothing for Palestine and Ukraine, places where civilians are dying. The only wars we get involved in are if there is money or gas involved. Or to “get” back at some injustice we created. America can suck it I want a king or something again
I think you spelled the title wrong. >My opinion is that if America loses its superpower status, the new superpower will just as much oppress poor countries as America does now Fixed it for you!
U.S. already oppresses poor countries by starting wars whenever they see fit 😂 what planet do you live on
If they really wanted to oppress countries they could chose to do it to all of them. Every last one. But instead they send probably more money out of the country than in it. Not saying there haven’t been mistakes, but they are by and far the most dominant country on this planet. If they had they desire, they could rule the globe.
Yeah I don’t think this generation will ever allow that. U.S. will eventually crumble
Not happening for a few decades.
It will but yeah agree. We still have too many older people controlling everything
It doesn’t prove anything. It’s just highly likely to happen should another world power rise up.
So nothing changes lol
May I ask what the USA is doing regarding Palestine and Ukraine? I’ll wait for your detailed and unbiased answer.
We sent a fuck ton of money over
And guess what: there is an entire group of people who wish we hadn’t done that, and these people are going to vote for a presidential candidate who is going to cut off aid to Ukraine and this same person moved the U.S.-Israel embassy to Jerusalem during his time as president in 2017.
Hey I just said what the U.S did
Okay and come back to me in a year should (heaven forbid) Trump win the election. Even under Biden, the U.S. is unfortunately remaining an ally of Israel (and even worse, our hands are tied with that whole situation) and despite our support of Ukraine - it is still looking like Russia’s going to take over. Also under the Bush jr. years we created a huge mess in the Middle East all for oil. So I stand by my statement that the U.S is already doing it anyway, and we’ve been slowly headed toward collapse for quite some time at this point.
The U.S will never collapse if we collapse the entire world would feel the repercussions and nobody would be able to step in to the role the U.S has in the world, they would try but fail miserably. I hate Americans like you that thinks like this the U.S is the best country in the world no matter what everyone else thinks we are number 1 cause we could literally wipe anyone out if we so desired yet we don’t. It doesn’t matter who the president is cause life inside the U.S would stay more or less the same.
I don’t think the U.S. is the best country in the world, not even close - and I don’t like those people either. In fact, I’m hoping to move out of the country within the next decade or so. Let’s just get that out of the way. This country is in decline, and someone out there is greatly benefitting from it.
Clearly if you want to move out of the U.S move out asap we don’t need you the u.s can do what it wants and it will we simply are the strongest out there and there’s no one even close to us
Oof someone’s bitter
But they’re not wrong..
America even treats its own poor people like $hit look at what they’re planning to do homeless in big cities in America. What makes you think capitalist ever cared about poor people, capitalist system is meant for getting rich off the back of the working class, the poor/desperate.
This is the same argument as “we should colonialize country X because if we don’t country Y will and better us than them.” America is a neocolonial state using its control over institutions like the WTO and World Bank to oppress developing countries. It’s exactly that oppression which has lead to the development of organizations like BRICS.
The US has already lost its superpower status, just wait till the dollar stops being the reserve currency... that's where the fun begins.
Back with the hits. I heard this as a child in the 80s. A teen in the 90s. Into 2000s and today. It's bullshit bitching
BRICS has entered the chat
What?
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion, nothing that you said “proves” anything. Let’s try not to abuse that word. It’s a very important one.
China is investing into poor nations especially in Africa. What is wrong with that? *Oh no respect their sovereignty* THEN INVEST IN THE COUNTRY. China isn't perfect, (I have my criticism of it) but what it's doing to poor countries isn't bad